By Joe Bauman
Deseret News staff writer

      A U.S. Labor Department administrative law judge has castigated Dugway Proving Ground for illegally firing a whistle-blower and recommends that the western Utah base pay him actual and punitive damages of $1.47 million plus attorney fees.
      The Aug. 8 ruling was a recommendation because it must be affirmed by the secretary of the Labor Department, considered nearly automatic. The next step, should Dugway fight the decision, is the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Denver.
      David W. Hall, a now-retired chemist living in Sugar House, was fully vindicated in his 1997 suit against the Army base, according to the ruling by the judge, David W. Di Nardi. He ruled after 57 days of hearings.
      This may be the largest monetary award in a whistle-blower suit against a government agency, said Hall's lawyer, Mick Harrison of Berea, Ky. It puts the government on notice and is particularly important in light of the destruction of chemical warfare agent at the Army's incinerator near Stockton, Tooele County, he said.
      "I think the ruling is precedent-setting in the sense that it holds a government agency accountable . . . perhaps at a level that has not been experienced before," Harrison added.
      Judge Di Nardi called Hall a dedicated, conscientious and highly motivated citizen.
      "Given recent events, if there ever is a time when slack enforcement at chemical and biological warfare facilities is appropriate, this is not the time," wrote Di Nardi, discussing punitive damages.
      The award included $250,000 in punitive damages because of Dugway's "egregious actions herein and as a deterrent for other employers who may be similarly inclined in the future."
      Asked for a comment, on Dugway public affairs officer Paula Nicholson responded, "We can't really comment because it's pending litigation."
      Hall filed suit in 1997 alleging that Dugway had forced him into early retirement after he drew attention to hazardous conditions at the base.
      One of the more striking claims in the case concerned chemical warfare agent hazards at the base, which is taxed with developing gear to detect and prevent exposure to deadly agents. In the past, Dugway also conducted tests on nerve agent and other poisons in the open air.
      Starting in 1987 and continuing through 1996, Hall reported to the Army and the state "issues regarding chemical warfare agent contact hazards that remain after application of Army triple-X (three-times) decontamination methods to agent-contaminated materials," the judge wrote.
      Hall was concerned that the Army failed to properly decontaminate materials, including waste, that were contaminated with chemical warfare agents. It also failed to adequately test material for residual agent contamination after it attempted decontamination, he alleged.
      "Dr. Hall's concern included the Army's failure to warn and protect individuals coming into contact with chemical warfare materials that despite having been subjected to triple-X decon methods, they continued to have residual agent contamination undetected below the surface."
      Hall disclosed that even though decontamination methods might be effective in largely eliminating the chemical vapor from the surface, "unfortunately for everyone concerned, the chemical warfare agent penetrates below the surface and remains a skin contact hazard and also to be a reservoir . . . to continue to let off gas and pose some vapor hazard."
      Another factor in the case was that Hall told the Army and the state that "there existed a contaminated site near the Carr Facility, which should also be a restoration site similar to Simpson Butte, because mines containing a mustard/Lewisite (chemical warfare agent) mixture had been exploded in a field and soldiers in protective equipment were required to crawl through it to test the efficacy of their protective equipment," the ruling noted.
      Hall was forced to retire in June 1997, earlier than he had planned, "due to the hostile work environment and the threat of imminent action by Dugway to terminate his employment," the suit says.
      He began work as a Dugway chemist in 1987. By the time of his retirement, he had "lived through 10 years of hostile treatment . . . overt hostility from management including being called a traitor by an Army general, several uncalled-for mental examinations, false allegations of misconduct" and threats of firing.
      Asked for his comments, Hall said on Monday that the ruling left him "tremendously relieved."
      Almost certainly it will be appealed, he added, but he felt that the level of detail in Di Nardi's 166-page decision would assure that the ruling will be upheld.
      "Several of the issues that I raised with Dugway to get fixed are current," he said. Among these are matters concerning terrorism and emergency response. In addition, his concerns could be applied to situations regarding other contaminated sites in the United States.
      Why is terrorism involved? Because his suit shows "that the Army often isn't nearly as prepared as they like to make out."
      Some Utahns are extremely proud of Dugway's performance, he said. "But it's really not that sophisticated."
      He compared the base to a manufacturing plant and said it does not have the same level of sophistication as the Army's research center in Maryland.
      "If anything goes wrong, they don't really have the high levels of education and research experience to do much of anything." He believes a new group of experts coming to Dugway for a terrorism response program could improve matters, and he offered to give the new team his advice.